[JohnP]

Eliza,

Can you link to some of the specifc articles where she discusses this topic? (If you know where they are) She has a lot of articles ...

From the research I have seen there seems to be an adaptation that formerly obese people have. It's not an issue of metabolisms being slower - but that SPA and NEAT are reduced. Purposeful activity can make up for this quite easily though, you just need to make it a part of your life.

For health reasons, it's a good idea to be active anyways.

[lin43]

Originally Posted by JohnP

Technically you're right. A lb of muscle uses about 6 calories per lb per 24 hour period. (While a lb of fat uses 2.)

If you by miracle of genetics and hard work manage to put on 20lbs of muscle in the next 2 years you can eat 40 more calories per day if you don't lose any fat.

The idea that muscle burns a lot of calories is wrong.

Originally Posted by berryblondeboys

. . . I'm starting to wonder if cardio, in the end, will give me more bang for the buck and it's not like you don't gain muscle while running or walking, or swimming, etc.

I have thought the above for quite some time. Here's an interesting article on the subject that I posted a while back:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may...-myth-20110516

I find weight lifting boring except when done in the context of circuit training or in a group fitness class. I try to do that 2-3 times a week because regardless of calorie burn, I like the toned look that comes from weight lifting.

[JohnP]

James Fell is not an expert. He only has published articles because his writing style is funny.

Fortunately - he is right because he gets his information from experts.

[eliza422]

I went through the archives and pulled out a few articles. Now a caveat - she is a proponent of Primarian/Paleo style eating - essentially no carbs - so that colors her articles.

However, she gives what I think is a very clear, if difficult to swallow, take on what maintenance will be for the majority of us. On the other hand, I'd rather go into it knowing what I'm up against rather than with a la-dee-da attitude.

http://www.refusetoregain.com/2008/0...-calories.html
http://www.refusetoregain.com/2008/1...ibm-doing.html
http://www.refusetoregain.com/2008/1...ight-loss.html
http://www.refusetoregain.com/2012/1...ng-weight.html
http://www.refusetoregain.com/2010/0...n-goes-on.html
http://www.refusetoregain.com/2009/0...athwater-.html
http://www.refusetoregain.com/2009/0...y-dont-ha.html
http://www.refusetoregain.com/2011/1...s-dilemma.html

I hope these help!

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by eliza422

I hope these help!

Oh boy ... I don't know if I can wade through ... I had to stop reading the first article when I read this ...

"Eating carbohydrates requires that your body make hefty amounts of insulin. Eating fats and proteins do not stimulate the body to make significant insulin."

Since this is not true ... and a basic fact ... no matter how useful her information may be to people I can only read people who get basic science write.

I figured I'll keep reading and then I got to this gem...

"When you have a lot of insulin around, particularly if you have had a tendency to store fat in the past, you begin to divert a lot of your food into the fat cells."

Protein causes insulin to be released and when fed in equal amounts protein can stimulate more insulin to be released and fat is stored by humans whenever it gets the chance - insulin does not need to be plentiful. The only "food" that is stored as fat in humans (for the most part) is fat ... as we already covered.

I can't read any more. I'm sure she has helped many people lose fat and keep it off, but I can't read any more. Reading "experts" who get basic facts wrong makes me want to poke my eyes out.

[freelancemomma]

Originally Posted by eliza422

POs can never eat like NBOs because of the metabolic changes we've been through.

Even that is variable. I've yo-yoed several times in my life (30-to-60-pound range), but my maintenance caloric requirements haven't changed beyond the slight decline to be expected from aging.

F.

[lin43]

Originally Posted by JohnP

James Fell is not an expert. He only has published articles because his writing style is funny.

Fortunately - he is right because he gets his information from experts.

Oh, definitely. I tend to gravitate toward writers who can put the science together for me in an engaging way (e.g., Malcolm Gladwell). Of course, I occasionally consult peer-reviewed journals, but most of the time, I'm not curious enough to wade through all the jargon unless I have to.

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by lin43

Oh, definitely. I tend to gravitate toward writers who can put the science together for me in an engaging way (e.g., Malcolm Gladwell). Of course, I occasionally consult peer-reviewed journals, but most of the time, I'm not curious enough to wade through all the jargon unless I have to.

Check out Alan Aragon and/or James Krieger. Sadly - both of them have gone to pay to read their stuff model but they do have plenty of free stuff available.